Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Sox Take Division

I know we were already co-champs of the A.L. East, but now, in my mind, we're the true champs. Because it turns out Matt Lawton is an admitted user of horse steroids, saying that he took them after signing with the yanks. So that game-winning homer against Baltimore is negated, and we get the division by one game.

It doesn't bring Theo back, but it's something. I'd like to thank the yanks for their commitment to cheating, which always cheers me up.

Everyone forgets that the Yankess only legitimately won 94 regular season games. On June 15th, they were awarded a 7-5 10-inning victory by the umpires, despite the fact that Sheffield very clearly grounded into a game ending double play in the 9th inning.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/gamecenter/recap/MLB_20050615_PIT@NYY

And yes, every teams gets some bad calls go their way every season, but those calls rarely come on what should be the very last play of the game. In other words, you rarely can say definitively that the outcome of the game would have been different if not for the blown call. In this case it was unequivocally the different between a W and an L.

Ah, the old blown call thing. Are you saying the White Sox should have a tarnished World Series because they were the recipient of so many bad calls? Maybe the umps were paid off in some weird, twisted reversal of the 1919 season.

I'll bet you're still whining to your MFY-fan buddies about the Cano calls in games 3 and 5 of the Yanks/Angels series, as if that was the reason the Halos won, douchebag.

And the point is that, unlike those plays:1) replays show without a doubt that the umps blew the call2)it clearly was the SOLE difference between an W and an L; you can't make any claim that the Yanks could have still won the game if the umps had gotten it right.

And I wasn't saying anything about the legitimacy of the ChiSox victory; again, none of the questionable calls in their favor this October can be cited as the only factor in a W for them.

Wow, you're really scraping Nick; you've already been proven dead wrong about Giambi's confession, but you just keep grasping for more straws. From the link that you refuse to read:"New York Yankees star Jason Giambi told a federal grand jury that he had injected himself with human growth hormone during the 2003 baseball season and had started using steroids at least two years earlier, The Chronicle has learned."

Are you going to defy all logic and try to claim that he was using in-season in 2003, but was clean with nothing in his system by October? Actually, based on your dissembling throughout this thread, I'm sure you will. At this rate, you can always get a job in the Bush Administration.

"Never have I said that Jason Giambi does or doesn't (or didn't) use steroids."

You flat out tried to claim that he had never admitted it; which of course, has been proven to be 100% false. Talk about presenting a (wrong) opinion as fact.

Are you trying now to claim that you weren't implying with that statement that Giambi had never juiced?

I supplied the original report of his grand jury confession, and you tried to ignore it with some irrelevant spin about it being illegally leaked. One more time, Nick: Are you going to deny that Giambi confessed to steroid and HGH use during the 2003 season? Are you going to try to claim that he could have been juicing during the season, and not have derived any benefit from it during the post-season? Possible...maybe. Likely...no.

And anybody who thinks that Steinbrenner is baseball's savior, or reading Rush Limbaugh, has a lot of nerve ever calling anyone else an idiot.

Nick, please do explain the difference for you with regards to even bothering mentioning the distinction.

Unless you were trying to imply something else, why would bring up some pointless semantical issue that really amounts to nothing? You know who else "as admitted to no such thing"? OJ Simpson. Big fuckin' whoop.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nothing I've said has been incorrect.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Almost everything you've said has been incorrect. First you tried to claim Giambi's never admitted to using steroids which, while also untrue, had nothing to do with what was being talked about. In other words, you were implying that this meant he was innocent.

Then you started backtracking.

In other words, you either realize he did them or are in denial. Either way, what does it matter if he literally admitted it or not (which he did)? He did it, that's all that matters.